The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
PTPRelied upon · psychiatry
Found injury arising out of employment on cumulative trauma period July 31, 2000 through August 9, 2002; identified multiple overlapping causative factors accreting over employment; found personnel action not a substantial cause of psychiatric injury.
The court found Dr. Glaser's reporting to be more persuasive and reliable, reflecting applicant's credible testimony and a thorough analysis of causation factors.
From the decision · page 8After a review of the totality of the reporting in evidence and following three orders for
development of the record to address issues of substantiality, the undersigned was satisfied that
the reporting of Dr. Glaser constituted substantial medical evidence. Dr. Glaser's reporting
expressed familiarity with the applicant's medical and vocational history, and reflected a clear
understanding of the claimed stressors in this matter.
QMERejected · psychiatry
Assessed the July 2002 performance improvement plan as the sole predominant factor in psychiatric injury, with other industrial stressors minor; report not well-supported in record.
The court found Dr. Jacks' assessment less persuasive and not well-supported compared to Dr. Glaser's.
From the decision · page 9physiological response, as reflected in contemporaneous medical records. It was further felt that
Dr. Jacks' assessment of the July, 2002 performance improvement plan as the sole predominant
factor in applicant's psychiatric injury, with the myriad of other industrial stressors relegated to a
minor role, was not well-supported in the record. The factors that played a greater factor in
Dr. Glaser's analysis, and a lesser part in that of Dr. Jacks, included the onset of panic attacks,
severe IBS, shingles, seeking medical treatment for stress, and the need to work from home, all
occurring prior to the performance improvement plan ever being instituted. On this record, the
court found the reporting of Dr. Glaser to be the better-reasoned and more persuasive.
QMERelied upon · internal medicine
Found IBS preexisting and without industrial nexus; supported apportionment of 80% GERD disability to nonindustrial factors.
Based on medical report and applicant's testimony, apportionment was found for GERD-related disability.
From the decision · page 26APPORTIONMENT
Based upon the medical report of treating psychologist A. Joseph Glaser, Ph.D., dated June 29,
2021, and applicant's Qualified Medical Examiner (internal medicine) Timothy Reynolds, M.D.
dated October 22, 2019, based upon applicant's testimony, it is found that there is legal basis for
proper apportionment of 10% of the psychiatric disability to nonindustrial factors, and 80% of the
GERD-related disability to nonindustrial factors, as set forth in the formal rating instructions.